Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Gruffalux

IAMAMORON wrote: »

That is very subjective of you?

And sexist.

Frankenstein was written 5 years after PnP. They are completely different stories, one is shight, the other is compelling. I am not telling you which, just go and read them and find out for yourself.

You are reaching further than an Austen heroine turning up overdressed for the annual ball?

You are still not getting the point, instead you are seething like an undercut 3rd millenium feminist. Don't lower yourself, you are better than that.

Ah come off it. The cat has a very valid point - the various pieces of literature are quite diverse. And one could argue that all of those novels written by lady novelists back then were among the most extremely subversive threats to stupid societal mores..... I dare say! *heaves bosom*

Sardonicat

IAMAMORON wrote: »

That is very subjective of you?

And sexist.

Frankenstein was written 5 years after PnP. They are completely different stories, one is shight, the other is compelling. I am not telling you which, just go and read them and find out for yourself.

You are reaching further than an Austen heroine turning up overdressed for the annual ball?

You are still not getting the point, instead you are seething like an undercut 3rd millenium feminist. Don't lower yourself, you are better than that.

I actually can't stand Jane Austen myself. It was you lumping all 5 writers together, was it not? I was pointing that lumping any of the Brontes and Shelley together with Austen is rubbish. What point were you trying to make exactly?

IAMAMORON

Sardonicat wrote: »

I actually can't stand Jane Austen myself. It was you lumping all 5 writers together, was it not? I was pointing that lumping any of the Brontes and Shelley together with Austen is rubbish. What point were you trying to make exactly?

That modern woke feminists are cantankerous and belligerent.

As opposed to being hopeless romantics. Which is a pity for everyone, all said.

biko

Gruffalux wrote: »

I just adore period dramas and I'm a bit of a bolshie dame. This can create conflict. My politically incorrect discourse includes phrases like ''shan't'' ''I say!'' and ''why ever not'' after a binge.

I'm just after watching "Love & Friendship" and "Emma" in one sitting...

Sardonicat

Gruffalux wrote: »

Ah come off it. The cat has a very valid point - the various pieces of literature are quite diverse. And one could argue that all of those novels written by lady novelists back then were among the most extremely subversive threats to stupid societal mores..... I dare say! *heaves bosom*

There is some seriously fuked up stuff in Wuthering Heights, if you can read well enough between the Victorian lines, which of course the Victorians could which is why it was considered a vile and disgusting book in Emily Bronte's lifetime and why her sister most likely destroyed a manuscript of another novel by Emily after her death and did a major PR job on her to rehabilitate her public image (she was alright really, just lead a very sheltered life that fuelled a vivid imagination. Nothing to see here.)As a result, we really know nothing about her.

Sardonicat

IAMAMORON wrote: »

That modern woke feminists are cantankerous and belligerent.

As opposed to being hopeless romantics. Which is a pity for everyone, all said.

Still not getting your point here.

Gruffalux

biko wrote: »

I'm just after watching "Love & Friendship" and "Emma" in one sitting...

I have binged on Bridgerton and Summer of Rockets. All my inner discourse now is done in a very posh accent.

EmmetSpiceland

Sardonicat wrote: »

There is some seriously fuked up stuff in Wuthering Heights, if you can read well enough between the Victorian lines, which of course the Victorians could which is why it was considered a vile and disgusting book in Emily Bronte's lifetime and why her sister most likely destroyed a manuscript of another novel by Emily after her death and did a major PR job on her to rehabilitate her public image (she was alright really, just lead a very sheltered life that fuelled a vivid imagination. Nothing to see here.)As a result, we really know nothing about her.

It’s a great read, though. Was years ago, at this stage, when I read it. Must see about giving it a re-read.

Not a big Austen fan either, S, but do think ‘Persuasion’ is worth a look.

Sardonicat

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

It’s a great read, though. Was years ago, at this stage, when I read it. Must see about giving it a re-read.

Not a big Austen fan either, S, but do think ‘Persuasion’ is worth a look.

Wuthering Heights is a cracking read! Defies classification too. Certainly not a romance, unless your only experience of it is the multiple film and television adaptations that entirely miss the point. There was an adaptation of half the story a few years ago called 'Heathcliff' that is fairly on the nose. It caused quite the controversy as they cast a mixed race actor in the leading role. A bit stupid really, because, if they'd actually read the book they'd know Heathcliff wasnt white. My gripe with it was the modern day dialogue. If you're trying to stay true to the original why fuk up the brilliant dialogue already available to you? I dont expect line by line copies, obviously, but is there really any need for a character written in the 1840s and set thirty years or so prior to that to come out with 'What the actual fuk?" It used to be on Netflix, not sure if it's still there, but if you're a fan of the novel it's well worth a look. Romance? Ha!

kildare lad

Harvard university now refers to woman as birthing people because apparently it's offensive to men who can also have babies aswell .


After thousands of social media users mocked Harvard Medical School -- which is ranked as the top medical school for research in the United States, according to US News and World Report -- the school posted a follow-up tweet.



“The webinar panelists used the term ‘birthing person’ to include those who identify as non-binary or transgender because not all who give birth identify as ‘women’ or ‘girls,’” explained the tweet. “We understand the reactions to this terminology and in no way meant for it to erase or dehumanize women.”


Earlier this year, Campus Reform reported that Harvard’s T. H. Chan School of Public Health shared an article from Popular Mechanics, titled, “Why Some People Think 2+2=5… and why they’re right.”

The school’s official Twitter page asked, “Have you ever thought to yourself, ‘How do I know that 2+2=4? Why isn't it 2+2+5?'”

https://campusreform.org/?id=16477


https://twitter.com/HMSPostgradCE/status/1325483984604831744?s=20

grassylawn

I don't understand the 2+2=5 thing. Is it satire?

Signore Fancy Pants

:rolleyes: x 1,000,000.

Kivaro

Jebus H. Christ. The wokeness of it all.
The world has gone mad.
Coming to a college campus (UCD) near you soon ......

Your Face

'Birthing person' is such a dehumanizing term.
We are not the Borg.

silliussoddius

2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6 (rounds up to 5)

More drivel to distract morons from the facts. Men can’t give birth and real men aren’t offended by this statement of fact.

grassylawn

Oh here is the 2+2=5 article. Sadly it is not sarire:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a33547137/why-some-people-think-2-plus-2-equals-5/

Smee_Again

Op needs to reread the tweet and understand what it actually says not what he and many others think it says.

silliussoddius

Smee_Again wrote: »

Op needs to reread the tweet and understand what it actually says not what he and many others think it says.

What does it say and what do you think others think?

Smee_Again

silliussoddius wrote: »

What does it say and what do you think others think?

They’ve replaced woman with people. They haven’t replaced woman with “birthing people” which is what the OP has claimed.

They are referring to ethnic minority women who have given birth or are pregnant.

It’s clunky and stupid but they haven’t called all women “birthing people”.

silliussoddius

Smee_Again wrote: »

They’ve replaced woman with people. They haven’t replaced woman with “birthing people” which is what the OP has claimed.

They are referring to ethnic women who have given birth or are pregnant.

It’s clunky and stupid but they haven’t called all women “birthing people”.

It's also pandering, trying to one up other liberals in the purity test and this nonsense won't end here.

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

Jebus H. Christ. The wokeness of it all.
The world has gone mad.
Coming to a college campus (UCD) near you soon ......

Ah I don't know, I'd fancy the lunacy to start in Galway myself, and maybe spread from there.

Smee_Again

silliussoddius wrote: »

It's also pandering, trying to one up other liberals in the purity test and this nonsense won't end here.

All true.

Still doesn’t make the OP any less wrong.

silliussoddius

Smee_Again wrote: »

All true.

Still doesn’t make the OP any less wrong.

They just forgot to mention the word pregnant, doesn't really negate the ridiculousness of the whole thing.

Elmo

Well they got their tweet wrong Maternal Justice!

Smee_Again

silliussoddius wrote: »

They just forgot to mention the word pregnant, doesn't really negate the ridiculousness of the whole thing.

It doesn’t negate the ridiculousness but it does make me question the OP’s intent.

Barna77

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a gender fluid husband. Lacking of, a trouple.

PnP for milleanials.

Sir Oxman

https://twitter.com/retrobookshelf/status/1343964234024157185?s=20

kildare lad

Smee_Again wrote: »

Op needs to reread the tweet and understand what it actually says not what he and many others think it says.

Heres a reply they wrote in response to the criticism they got from the original post , soon man and woman will be offensive words because 0.00025% get upset when they hear them


https://twitter.com/HMSPostgradCE/status/1325859394253361152?s=20

murpho999

"Woke" must be the most annoying term of recent times and people on boards seem to be obsessed about it.